Nonsense, you say? I beg to differ.
I suppose you need a reference so here it is:
The social extrapolations of atheistic evolutionism are embedded in the later writings of Karl Marx. His later work
Capital (first published in 1867 – about eight years after Darwin’s 1859
On the Origin of Species) reflects Marx’s whole-hearted embracement of Darwinism whereby biological organs (claimed by Darwin to have been developed through natural selection) are compared with the development of tools and machinery He writes:
Darwin, in his epoch-making work On the Origin of Species, ch. 5, remarks, with reference to the natural organs of plants and animals: “So long as one and the same organ has different kinds of work to perform, a ground for its changeability may possibly be found in this, that natural selection preserves or suppresses each small variation of form less carefully than if that organ were destined for one special purpose alone. Thus, knives that are adapted to cut all sorts of things may, on the whole, be of one shape; but an implement destined to be used exclusively in one way must have a different shape for every different use.” (See Hutchins, Robert Maynard, Editor-in-Chief.
Great Books of the Western World (The University of Chicago), Vol. 50 (
Marx),
Capital (by Karl Marx, edited by Friedrich Engels), William Benton, Publisher, Encyclopaedia Britannica Inc., Chicago · London · Toronto, 1952, Chapter XIV: Division of Labour and Manufacture,
2. The Detail Labourer and His Implements, p. 166, note 3.)
Marx continues this comparison in a subsequent chapter wherein the entire matter is extrapolated to a philosophy of universal materialism that he would have as the substantive basis for religion:
Before this time, spinning machines, although very imperfect ones, had already been used, and Italy was probably the country of their first appearance. A critical history of technology would show how little any of the inventions of the eighteenth century are the work of a single individual. Hitherto there is no such book. Darwin has interested us in the history of Nature’s technology, i.e., in the formation of the organs of plants and animals, which organs serve as instruments of production for sustaining life. Does not the history of the productive organs of man, of organs that are the material basis of all social organization, deserve equal attention? And would not such a history be easier to compile, since, as Vico says, human history differs from natural history in this, that we have made the former, but not the latter? Technology disclosed man’s mode of dealing with Nature, the process of production by which he sustains his life, and thereby also lays bare the mode of formation of his social relations, and of the mental conceptions that flow from them. Every history of religion, even, that fails to take account of this material basis, is uncritical. It is, in reality, much easier to discover by analysis the earthly core of the misty creations of religion than, conversely, it is to develop from the actual relations of life the corresponding celestialized forms of those relations. The latter method is the only materialistic, and, therefore the only scientific one. The weak points in the abstract materialism of natural science, a materialism that excludes history and its process, are at once evident from the abstract and ideological conceptions of its spokesmen, whenever they venture beyond the bounds of their own specialty. (
Ibid., Chapter XV:
1. The Development of Machinery, p. 181, note 3.)
But just in case there is still some doubt about Darwin’s influence in the era of the Union of the Soviet Socialists Republics, please check out the 1959 stamp issued by the USSR featuring Darwin’s portrait:
Russia - Charles Darwin on stamps theme, 1959. | Stamp, Stamp collecting, Russia
I say again, without the proliferation of heliocentrism during the Enlightenment (so-called), evolutionism would not have emerged in the nineteenth century, and without evolutionism, Marxism would not have proliferated in the twentieth century to the extent that it did. That same communist contagion is now dramatically infecting the West in the twenty-first century.